2008 Supreme(SC) 1401

2008(7) Supreme 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Dhirendra Pandua — Appellant
versus
State of Orissa & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26226 of 2005)
Decided on : 19-09-08

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is well settled that Article 14 of Constitution of India,1950 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation.
Under Article 136 of the Constitution Supreme Court does not ordinarily re-appraise evidence for itself nor determine whether or not the High court has come to a correct conclusion on facts.

Headnote:Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 – Section 38, 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) – Election of appellant as Councillor and Chairperson of Municipal Council – Election Petition filed by complainant questioning the election of appellant as Councillor and Chairperson, on ground that being a leprosy patient, he had incurred disqualification and, therefore, could not continue as such – Allowed by Tribunal – Writ Petition – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Stand of the complainant was that appellant was a leprosy patient and his status as such had been continuing even prior to the date of election, which was evidently borne out from the fact that he had himself approached Court, soliciting directions to the State Health Authorities to conduct requisite medical investigations and tests on him and “to issue him a certificate on finding him cured and fit so as to obviate his disability arising out of the disease” – On an elaborate analysis of evidence, led by both sides, District Judge held that appellant was still suffering from risk prone leprosy – None of the circumstances taken into consideration by District Judge, could be said to be either irrelevant or not germane to the issue for determination so as to warrant interference of Court – It was perceptible that on appellant’s own showing that he was having some doubts about at least the reactivation of the disease and had to approach Court for appropriate directions to the concerned authorities for providing adequate facilities for periodical check ups including bacteriological tests and issue of fitness certificate – Hence District Judge as also High Court were justified in coming to the conclusion that on facts obtaining at the relevant time, appellant had not been fully cured of leprosy – No infirmity or illegality found in the impugned judgment warranting interference – Appeal, being devoid of any merit, dismissed. (Paras 17 to 19)

        Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 -It is trite that under Article 136 of the Constitution Supreme Court does not ordinarily re-appraise evidence for itself nor determine whether or not the High court has come to a correct conclusion on facts – It is only where the High Court has completely missed the real point requiring adjudication or has missed or ignored the relevant material Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence for the purpose of satisfying itself that grave injustice had not resulted in the matter. (Para 19)

        Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 – Sections 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) – Constitutional Validity of – Plea of appellant that provisions of Section 16 and 17 of the Act being discriminatory were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – It is well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation – Nonetheless, that classification should not be arbitrary but must rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which the classification is made – Instantly impugned classification was that those persons who had been or had become of unsound mind or leprosy or tuberculosis patients were disqualified from either contesting for the post of a Councillor in the Municipality or continuing as such after election – The obvious object and the purpose sought to be achieved by the said restriction appeared to be that being a contagious disease, it could be transmitted via droplets from the nose and mouth during close and frequent contacts with untreated infected persons, therefore, the other elected Councillors or the members of the public with whom they are required to have day-to-day close contact as Municipal Councillors, may also get affected by the disease – Legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to retain such provisions in the statute in order to eliminate the danger of its being transmitted to other people from the person affected by the disease- Since said classification did bear a reasonable and just relation with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question it could not be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary – Hence held that Sections 16(1)(iv) and 17 (1)(b) of the Act were not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 20, 21)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. An Election Petition was filed by complainant herein in the instant case questioning the election of appellant as Councillor and Chairperson, on ground that being a leprosy patient, he had incurred disqualification and, therefore, could not continue as such. Said Election Petition was allowed by Tribunal. Writ Petition there against was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        On an elaborate analysis of evidence, led by both sides, District Judge had held that appellant was still suffering from risk prone leprosy. None of the circumstances taken into consideration by District Judge, could be said to be either irrelevant or not germane to the issue for determination so as to warrant interference of Court. It was perceptible that on appellant’s own showing that he was having some doubts about at least the reactivation of the disease and had to approach Court for appropriate directions to the concerned authorities for providing adequate facilities for periodical check ups including bacteriological tests and issue of fitness certificate. Hence District Judge as also High Court were justified in coming to the conclusion that on facts obtaining at the relevant time, appellant had not been fully cured of leprosy. No infirmity or illegality was found in the impugned judgment warranting interference. Appeal, being devoid of any merit, was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.